this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23419 readers
241 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This seems like a very weird idea for where to put a space based solar array. The geostationary orbit is already pretty crowded, and a lot of the array would be edge on to the sun at any given time.
GEO is the traditional place to put powersats. They stay in the sun for like 99% of the year and they're always above your rectenna. Also there's way less variation in velocity among GEO satellites so you'd expect Kessler syndrome to be less of a concern.
Sure, but a big ass square of powersat in GEO above your ground station is a very different prospect from a band around the entire orbit
Oh I seriously doubt they meant a 36,000 km by 1 km wide array. They probably mean 1km by 1km which should be gigawatt scale.
Maybe the article/translation mangled what the scientist they're quoting was saying